Why not adopt a new philosophy?

by todd
(Las vegas)

Todd asked: With all the Tommy John, pitch-count concerns, why haven't more teams adopted a philosophy of having 2 strong pitchers per game idea?

If you had a rotation where an ace was only needed to pitch 4 innnings, and other 1 or 2 to pitch 4 innings, both pitchers counts would be lowered.

Plus, it forces the other team to prepare for 2 pitchers. Leaving 8th for set up and closer.

If a team stock piled starters, wouldn't they be fresher and have longer careers, and be more useful come playoff season?


Rick answered: Todd, thank you for your question.

I sat in a High School Coaches Clinic back in the late 90's, and listened to a pitching coach from one of the JC's in the Phoenix area.

He said he looked at every game as a 3 pitcher game, for many of the same reasons you are citing.

MLB could certainly do what you are describing; but probably won't.

It would mean they would have to expand their rosters, thus creating a much larger payroll.

There would be an immediate impact on historical statistics within the game, as they would have to adjust the way winning and losing pitchers are determined, as well as many other stats.

It would, without a doubt, relieve some of the wear and tear on pitchers arms, although quite often the wear and tear that finally creates the injury, was a result of many years of too many pitches and too many innings, starting at age 9 or 10.

Offensive statistics would certainly go down, and fans may or may not like that.

If the fans aren't happy, then the franchise won't make as much money, which is a major driving force of it all.

I like the idea at the Little League and High School Level, but the pool of arms is so limited it would be hard to accomplish.

Yours in baseball,

Rick